Thinking of digital..

M

MarkoKovacevic

Well-known
Local time
1:32 PM
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
512
View My Gallery
I'm thinking of getting a Nikon D2H for high volume low importance stuff like hanging out with friends, shooting sports, and shooting bike tricks.
It would probably save some cash for the film I'm not using, since photos from this kind of stuff will just end up on facebook anyways and then I don't have to scan negs/prints.

What do you think? I'm currently shooting Tri-x in a Nikon F5, and got a 28,50 and SB600.
 
MarkoKovacevic said:
I'm thinking of getting a Nikon D2H for high volume low importance stuff like hanging out with friends, shooting sports, and shooting bike tricks.
It would probably save some cash for the film I'm not using, since photos from this kind of stuff will just end up on facebook anyways and then I don't have to scan negs/prints.

What do you think? I'm currently shooting Tri-x in a Nikon F5, and got a 28,50 and SB600.
Click to expand...
I've just done a similar thing, but took a cheap option and got a D40 for my Nikkor lenses!, no automation of course, but surprisingly good results!
Dave.
 
What do I think? I think that with a bit of care your 2009 B&W negatives and contact sheets will survive fifty years or more. Mine did. Some of those young nobodies I hung out with and photographed back then went on to bigger and better things in the arts, the world of business, politics, etc. I save it all. It's money in the bank! People looking through my old contacts often spot somebody I didn't even know I'd ever caught on film back in the sixties or seventies.

Imagine the value today of a series of bike trick shots of a twelve year old kid. Somebody is leafing through your contact sheets, grabs the magnifier, and shouts "Damn! That's Lance Armstrong!"
 
Dave Wilkinson said:
I've just done a similar thing, but took a cheap option and got a D40 for my Nikkor lenses!, no automation of course, but surprisingly good results!
Dave.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I'm thinking D2h as its pretty much the digital version of the F5.

Al, I agree that those contacts and negatives may have value in a while, and also memories that I would probably not have with digital. I didn't even think of that!
 
the d2h is a brilliant camera with a few things to keep in mind. you need to frame up real well as cropping into the images heavily will result in the image coming apart quality wise. the other thing to keep in mind is to expose for the highlights... make it a mantra.

beyond that the d2h is a brilliant, tough and very, very fast camera that can print up to a4 with very little effort.

create contact sheets with small jpeg files to put away with the storage medium and voila... folks can stumble upon all the future stars to their hearts content.
 
emraphoto said:
the d2h is a brilliant camera with a few things to keep in mind. you need to frame up real well as cropping into the images heavily will result in the image coming apart quality wise. the other thing to keep in mind is to expose for the highlights... make it a mantra.

beyond that the d2h is a brilliant, tough and very, very fast camera that can print up to a4 with very little effort.

create contact sheets with small jpeg files to put away with the storage medium and voila... folks can stumble upon all the future stars to their hearts content.
Click to expand...

There's just something more 'real' about looking through old wet prints and negatives.

I hardly ever crop anyways, even with film, so quality shouldn't be a problem.

About exposing for the highlights, just like slide film, will the D2H meter do it for me like the F5 does?
 
Al, I know what you are saying, but there is a difference. If Lance Armstrong had started as a kid today and then went on to be great, there would be thousands of photos some guy shot of him as a teenager with his new, used D2H. And 100's more his mom shot. And a few thousand his friends shot. And once he had any fame at all, many thousands more by countless PJ hacks at various events. Back in our day, most folks didn't shoot many photos, even of the kids. It just cost too much. Images are pervasive and cheap, now. The OP plans to stick 'em on Facebook as an example.

Now, back to the subject. I agree a D40 would probably be a better investment than the D2H.
 
I'm currently doing the opposite. Since I bought my Bessa in the Summer I have barely used my digital SLR's, except to take pictures of my Bessa 😛

I recently sent my Canon 1D off for service for a hair on the sensor, apparently it somehow got wedged between the actual sensor and the AA filter overtop. Canon says it's not worth fixing and recommended I buy something new. So I guess the lifespan of an $8000 digital camera is about 8 years before it's deemed not worth fixing. Luckily I wasn't the one who bought it new and it has paid for itself a few times over with jobs I have done. Now it's a doorstop unless I shoot it wide-open all the time so the hair isn't as noticable.
 
Sell the Nikon gear and get a Canon 40D with some primes - better image quality, larger resolution, better colors, and lighter camera. The 40D is quite fast too with 6.5fps.
 
aaron.tam said:
Sell the Nikon gear and get a Canon 40D with some primes - better image quality, larger resolution, better colors, and lighter camera. The 40D is quite fast too with 6.5fps.
Click to expand...

I still want to use film, and I think the F series is better than the Canon EOS film series, especially the durability and the meter.

I also hate the build of the Canon 50mm f1.8, and I can't really get myself into having different quality focus motors in each lens.
 
shooting bike tricks and sports on a d40 will prove an exercise in frustration really quick.

the metering on the d2h is very adept. i would be cautious shooting fast stuff, handheld with changing backgrounds in matrix mode but that being said i would be cautious with an f5 too (in all metering modes). beyond that you can expect equal metering ability and faster, more accurate autofocusing.
 
I agree that the F series is better than the EOS film series. EOS digital, however, is much better than Nikon's D series IMHO. And get the 50mm f1.4!
 
Yeah I think EOS is a bit better than Nikon for digital, but I like the Nikon metering and focus better. The brand doesn't really matter so much. I can't really afford the 1.4, if I could I would have it for my Nikon already, or have a Leica M6!
 
Hah! Get the Leica instead! I was at one point tempted to get a D2Hs myself when my D200 was failing me after a stint with a newspaper. I sold all my Nikon gear (a very painful experience for me) and switched over to a 1D Mkii and that's made me very happy ever since. I only use the 17-40mm f4 and the 50 1.4 which I got off a friend for cheap.
 
aaron.tam said:
Hah! Get the Leica instead! I was at one point tempted to get a D2Hs myself when my D200 was failing me after a stint with a newspaper. I sold all my Nikon gear (a very painful experience for me) and switched over to a 1D Mkii and that's made me very happy ever since. I only use the 17-40mm f4 and the 50 1.4 which I got off a friend for cheap.
Click to expand...

Eventually I will get a Leica, but until then, the Nikon is great.
1D is FF innit? I love shooting ultrawide and would be very happy with a 17-35mm on a nikon!

For me, film is for the serious stuff, and digital is for throwaway shots, not saying that digital is bad, but that is just my theory and my shooting style.
 
Noo, that's the 1.3 sensor in it. It's the closest thing to a film camera that I've used in the digital world though 😉 I'm a big filmhead too, the M2 follows me wherever I go, but at times I do need the digital.
 
Here's a picture taken with the 1D Mkii. I love the meters on the 1Ds. This particular model has very pleasant noise up till ISO 1250. I think this was shot at ISO 800-1000
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom